Maples v. Partain (In Re Maples)

Fifth Circuit

Maples v. Partain (In Re Maples)

529 F.3d 670, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11812, 2008 WL 2249953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 2008

Docket07-40385

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 529 F.3d 670 (Maples v. Partain (In Re Maples)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maples v. Partain (In Re Maples), 529 F.3d 670, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11812, 2008 WL 2249953 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The opinion issued in this case on May 30, 2008, is withdrawn and this revised opinion is substituted therefor.

Appellant Johnny Partain, proceeding pro se, raises twenty-seven issues in this appeal from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s final judgment in this adversary proceeding. After considering the briefs and reviewing the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.¹

The dissent raises two issues and, as to these issues, enunciates general principles. We do not so much disagree with the statements of general principles as with the certainty of the dissent that they have a precise fit in this case. This case is poorly briefed, and the record is incomplete. The majority is therefore unwilling to say anything other than that the district court committed no reversible error in affirming the bankruptcy court. We would observe that, in our opinion, it is not pellucid that Mr. Partain’s charge of conspiracy between Texas State Bank (“TSB”) and the debtor and/or the debtor’s estate to deprive him of his counsel does not allege and relate to liability on the part of the debtor’s estate in connection with this adversary proceeding. Thus, based on what is before us, we will not say flatly that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to address this claim. The claim, in any event, is patently meritless. Second, it is uncertain whether, at some point, the bankruptcy court may have acquired jurisdiction over the assets of the corporation given that the stock of the corporation is now solely controlled by the bankruptcy trustee, who apparently had control over the assets at all the relevant times herein. The record and law are clear, however, that Mr. Partain never had any interest in these assets at any time relevant to these proceedings. We are therefore satisfied simply to AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The opinion issued in this case on May 30, 2008, is withdrawn and this revised opinion is substituted therefor.

Appellant Johnny Partain, proceeding pro se, raises twenty-seven issues in this appeal from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s final judgment in this adversary proceeding. After considering the briefs and reviewing the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.¹

The dissent raises two issues and, as to these issues, enunciates general principles. We do not so much disagree with the statements of general principles as with the certainty of the dissent that they have a precise fit in this case. This case is poorly briefed, and the record is incomplete. The majority is therefore unwilling to say anything other than that the district court committed no reversible error in affirming the bankruptcy court. We would observe that, in our opinion, it is not pellucid that Mr. Partain’s charge of conspiracy between Texas State Bank (“TSB”) and the debtor and/or the debtor’s estate to deprive him of his counsel does not allege and relate to liability on the part of the debtor’s estate in connection with this adversary proceeding. Thus, based on what is before us, we will not say flatly that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to address this claim. The claim, in any event, is patently meritless. Second, it is uncertain whether, at some point, the bankruptcy court may have acquired jurisdiction over the assets of the corporation given that the stock of the corporation is now solely controlled by the bankruptcy trustee, who apparently had control over the assets at all the relevant times herein. The record and law are clear, however, that Mr. Partain never had any interest in these assets at any time relevant to these proceedings. We are therefore satisfied simply to AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 F.3d 670, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11812, 2008 WL 2249953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maples-v-partain-in-re-maples-ca5-2008.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack